03-27-2014, 06:50 PM
Yea, well "taking liberties" in your version, may be fine with you when translating God's words, but not for me. If this is your method of "translating", then I would want nothing to do with your version of God's words...at all.
This type of careless and senseless adding words here and subtracting words there, are exactly how the textual mess got made, where you have one version saying this thing this way, and the other version saying that thing that way, and many times having varying meanings given and they each having more or less content than the other.
This we see in the old Latin versions, where it got so bad, that Jerome was begged to try to fix the problems made by men, and we see the same thing in the Greek versions, thus W&H thought that they would try to fix the problem...problem is...they just made it worse...way worse. Then Panin comes along and takes their corrupted text, and puts his spin on it, and claims it to be perfected and the inspired autograph in printed form.
This is not to mention the multitude of English versions all claiming to be "the best" yet, while each of them has more or less than the other, as to content. So which one is the true New Testament? Why, your new version of course! Please.
This is why I love The Eastern Aramaic New Testament, as found in all the Eastern Manuscripts. Always the same content, for its entire existence, since the time the Apostles gave it to the Christians of the Aramaic speaking Church of the East. Pure, simple, unadulterated, no variation as to it's content and the words are the same words too.
So, you admit here that Mr. Ivan Panin had to construct a new edited version of the Westcot and Hort corruption of a text, and carefully craft the words together so that they would make his "bible numeric's" work right. So, what he did is create his own "miracle" and call it God's work instead, rather than his own crafty handiwork.
He couldn't find an actual Greek text that would do the trick, so, he made one up that would work...then tell people that his new version was the autograph restored by him, and all others that exist and have existed are the corruptions, his version being perfect, since he made the numeric's work right as he stitched the text together the way it would work right.
And now you seem to have the same method of dealing with your English version of his newly invented text, where you think you can just add a word here or there, when you think it makes more sense or gives the right meaning, and also as you said, to keep your version unique from the rest of the bunch. Too much.
Ok...as for my genetics, what do you consider "Eastern"?
1st off, that picture has been doctored up by me using a photo program I used, as I am a bit artistic in nature, so, it is not an exact copy of what I really look like...sort of what folks do with the The New Testament. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
But, maybe you think you see my 1/4 American Indian (Choctaw) bloodline on my Dad's side peaking through the lines, but, if you do, you would be the 1st person ever to make that observation, as I look like a typical "white" guy in all respects, being 3/4 English/Welsh/Irish/ on my Moms side...with a tiny little Cherokee from her mother's side too, as I recall. So, if we can say that the American Indians 1st originated in the East, before coming over to "the West" (actually they would have been traveling East) <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ...then yea, I guess you could say I have some "Eastern" in my make up. lol
But, really...we are all of Eastern extraction, being that we all come from "the middle East", through the three sons of Noah, who's descendants all spread out from the Mesopotamia area some few hundred years after the Flood. Speaking of which, I'm going to watch that movie this weekend.
in closing this post out...I really hope you are not a racist type of person, at all...cause that would even be worse for you.
.
This type of careless and senseless adding words here and subtracting words there, are exactly how the textual mess got made, where you have one version saying this thing this way, and the other version saying that thing that way, and many times having varying meanings given and they each having more or less content than the other.
This we see in the old Latin versions, where it got so bad, that Jerome was begged to try to fix the problems made by men, and we see the same thing in the Greek versions, thus W&H thought that they would try to fix the problem...problem is...they just made it worse...way worse. Then Panin comes along and takes their corrupted text, and puts his spin on it, and claims it to be perfected and the inspired autograph in printed form.
This is not to mention the multitude of English versions all claiming to be "the best" yet, while each of them has more or less than the other, as to content. So which one is the true New Testament? Why, your new version of course! Please.
This is why I love The Eastern Aramaic New Testament, as found in all the Eastern Manuscripts. Always the same content, for its entire existence, since the time the Apostles gave it to the Christians of the Aramaic speaking Church of the East. Pure, simple, unadulterated, no variation as to it's content and the words are the same words too.
So, you admit here that Mr. Ivan Panin had to construct a new edited version of the Westcot and Hort corruption of a text, and carefully craft the words together so that they would make his "bible numeric's" work right. So, what he did is create his own "miracle" and call it God's work instead, rather than his own crafty handiwork.
He couldn't find an actual Greek text that would do the trick, so, he made one up that would work...then tell people that his new version was the autograph restored by him, and all others that exist and have existed are the corruptions, his version being perfect, since he made the numeric's work right as he stitched the text together the way it would work right.
And now you seem to have the same method of dealing with your English version of his newly invented text, where you think you can just add a word here or there, when you think it makes more sense or gives the right meaning, and also as you said, to keep your version unique from the rest of the bunch. Too much.
Ok...as for my genetics, what do you consider "Eastern"?
1st off, that picture has been doctored up by me using a photo program I used, as I am a bit artistic in nature, so, it is not an exact copy of what I really look like...sort of what folks do with the The New Testament. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->But, maybe you think you see my 1/4 American Indian (Choctaw) bloodline on my Dad's side peaking through the lines, but, if you do, you would be the 1st person ever to make that observation, as I look like a typical "white" guy in all respects, being 3/4 English/Welsh/Irish/ on my Moms side...with a tiny little Cherokee from her mother's side too, as I recall. So, if we can say that the American Indians 1st originated in the East, before coming over to "the West" (actually they would have been traveling East) <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> ...then yea, I guess you could say I have some "Eastern" in my make up. lolBut, really...we are all of Eastern extraction, being that we all come from "the middle East", through the three sons of Noah, who's descendants all spread out from the Mesopotamia area some few hundred years after the Flood. Speaking of which, I'm going to watch that movie this weekend.
in closing this post out...I really hope you are not a racist type of person, at all...cause that would even be worse for you.
.